Keywords
Endoscopy Lower GI Tract - Polyps / adenomas / ... - Colorectal cancer - Endoscopic
resection (polypectomy, ESD, EMRc, ...)
Introduction
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a minimally invasive endoscopic resection
technique allowing noninvasive superficial gastrointestinal neoplasia to be removed
en bloc regardless of tumor size [1]. The most labor-intensive step is dissecting thin and soft submucosal connective
tissues using diathermy with meticulous endoscopic maneuvers, which may take longer
procedure time and carry higher risks of adverse events (AEs) such as severe bleeding
and perforation [2]. A major cause of technical challenges associated with submucosal dissection is
inadequate visualization of submucosal tissue planes [3]. A variety of traction techniques, using gravitational traction [4], hood attachment [5] and traction devices, have been widely used to facilitate ESD by deflecting the
mucosal overlay away from the dissection plane [6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]. A systematic review that covered 3,134 patients who underwent gastrointestinal
ESD [12] proved that anchor-guided ESD, the double endoscope method, and clip-assisted methods
accomplished shortener procedure times, higher rates of R0 resection, and reduced
occurrence of bleeding and perforation. Prior multicenter randomized controlled trials
(RCTs) have confirmed that use of traction devices hastened the submucosal dissection
process in the esophagus and stomach [13]
[14], although the advantage in the stomach was observed only for lesions in the greater
curvature of the upper and middle portions of the corpus.
Because of the redundant anatomy and thinner wall of the colon, colon ESD is considered
technically more challenging than upper gastrointestinal ESD. Therefore, it has been
strongly recommended that trainees perform enough gastric ESDs before undertaking
colorectal ESD in Japanese institutions [15]
[16]
[17]. However, the same training program may not be applicable to Western endoscopists,
given the low prevalence of upper gastrointestinal cancers. Development of an optimal
traction technique for the colon would be required to globally propagate the concept
of en bloc resection and ESD. A series of single-center RCTs have demonstrated that
use of traction devices facilitated colorectal ESD, reducing procedure time [6]
[8]
[11]. Meanwhile, the latest multicenter RCT (CONNECT-C study) [18]
comparing traction assisted ESD using different types of traction devices and traditional
non-assisted ESD showed no statistical difference in procedure time.
We developed a novel soft resin traction device comprising three interconnected loops
made from ultrathin linear low-density polyethylene (multi-loop traction device [MLTD];
Boston Scientific Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) [19]. Device delivery, deployment, and fixation of the traction device can be performed
with regular endoclips via an endoscope accessory channel without need for scope retrieval.
We surmised that the through-the-scope traction device would be more desirable for
colon ESD. A pilot study was conducted comparing MLTD-assisted colorectal ESD in novices
with conventional colorectal ESD in experts [20]. The results revealed no statistically significant difference in procedure time,
dissection speed, or AEs, suggesting its usefulness for safe introduction of colorectal
ESD. We hypothesized that MLTD would facilitate efficient traction and enhance dissection
speed in colorectal ESD. In this study, the technical advantage of procedure time
reduction with MLTD vs colorectal ESD was evaluated in a multicenter RCT.
Patients and methods
Trial design
A multicenter, open-label, parallel group RCT was conducted at four high-volume academic
centers in Japan. The study protocol was registered and disclosed online before recruitment
of the first participant. There were no significant changes in the methods, including
eligibility criteria, interventions, and outcomes, after trial commencement. We obtained
written informed consent from all participants. This study followed ethical guidelines
for medical and health research involving human subjects set by the Ministry of Health,
Labor and Welfare, Japan, the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki, and its later amendments.
Approval was obtained from the institutional review board of each participating facility
(study protocol No. 33–281).
Participants
The participants were adults aged 20 years or older undergoing colorectal ESD for
lesions ≥ 20 mm suspicious for noninvasive carcinoma. Patients with the following
criteria were excluded: refusal to provide consent, conditions precluding perioperative
antithrombotic therapy management, severe organ failure, blood coagulation disorders,
pregnancy, urgent and life-threatening condition, and ineligibility to participate
as judged by the operator. Lesions involving the terminal ileum, appendiceal orifice,
or diverticulum, and recurrent lesions on the scar after endoscopic treatment were
excluded. In participants with more than two eligible lesions, the most proximal lesion
was selected for the trial.
Randomization
Study participants were recruited at four tertiary medical centers in Japan (The Jikei
University Hospital, Tokyo, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, The University
of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, and The Jikei University Kashiwa Hospital, Chiba). Patient
registration and randomization was performed by the INDIC-Cloud automated computer-generated
randomization system (INDICE-Cloud), managed by UMIN Internet Data and Information
system for Clinical and Epidemiological research. Patients were randomly assigned
to either the MLTD-ESD group or the control group in a 1:1 ratio. Allocation was determined
using the minimization method with stratification based on the institution. Participants
and endoscopists were unblinded in the study, whereas treatment data and case report
forms were collected and concealed throughout the study, except from the independent
data manager approved by the institutional review board.
Multi-loop traction device
The MLTD is composed of three connected loops made of straight-chain low-density polyethylene,
with a loop thickness of 0.3 mm and a diameter of 6 mm. It is commercially available
in Japan for tissue traction and manipulation during endoscopic procedures. The MLTD
is grasped with an endoscopic clip and inserted into the forceps channel for delivery
to the gastrointestinal lumen. Traction is provided by clipping one end of the MLTD
onto the proximal edge of a circumferentially isolated mucosa and the other end onto
the opposite side of the healthy gastrointestinal wall. Direction and traction strength
can be modulated by adding a clip to fix the free middle loop of the device onto other
sites. The device can be safely and quickly retrieved using a forceps with a specimen
at the end of the procedure. The steps in MLTD are presented in [Fig. 1].
Fig. 1 Procedure steps in the MLTD-ESD group. a Colorectal lesion suspicious for early colon carcinoma. b Circumferential mucosal incision. c Traction clip anchored to the mucosal edge of the circumferentially isolated mucosa.
d Additional clipping to readjust traction force. e Complete removal of the lesion from the intestinal wall.
Endoscopists
Endoscopists were required to have performed a minimum of 10 clinical colorectal ESDs
to participate in the study. If the primary operator had performed fewer than five
MLTDs, an additional endoscopist who had performed at least five MLTDs had to be present.
Endoscopic procedure
Colorectal ESD was performed under intravenous anesthesia using benzodiazepine sedatives
and pethidine hydrochloride. The submucosa was elevated with local injection of 0.2%
or 0.4% hyaluronic acid solution. An electrocautery knife (Dual Knife, Olympus Corporation,
Tokyo, Japan; Flush Knife BT, FUJIFILM Corporation, Tokyo, Japan; Endosaber, Sumitomo
Bakelite Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan; or IT-nano, Olympus Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) in
conjunction with a high-frequency thermal coagulation device (VIO 3 or VIO 300D; Erbe
Elektromedizin GmbH., T Tübingen, Germany) was used for ESD. In the MLTD-ESD group,
the MLTD was applied when countertraction was deemed appropriate for dissection. Timing
of device attachment (e.g., before circumferential incision, after proximal dissection,
after circumferential incision) was left to operator discretion. All MLTDs were affixed
to the gastrointestinal wall with either the EZ Clip (Olympus Corporation, Tokyo,
Japan) or the SureClip (MicroTech Medical Co., Ltd., Hangzhou, China). In case of
unintended detachment of the MLTD, the operator was permitted to reuse it or use another
MLTD in case of unintended device detachment. After complete excision of the lesion,
the MLTD was severed from the wall with biopsy, grasping, or hemostatic forceps and
removed along with the specimen. Postoperative management adhered to the standard
treatment protocol at each institution.
Treatment conversion criteria
Under specific circumstances, operators were given the option to convert treatment
to
the other group during ESD. In the control group, they were allowed to use the MLTD
if
device-assisted traction method was deemed appropriate to proceed with the procedure
for
more than 10 minutes. In the MLTD-ESD group, they were permitted to transition into
conventional ESD if removal of the MLTD was considered necessary to carry out the
procedure
for more than 10 minutes, or if the endoscopist encountered difficulty in attaching
the
MLTD. Cases in which the MLTD unintentionally detached and the operator chose not
to use
MLTD to continue the dissection were considered treatment conversion.
Outcome measures
The primary endpoint was dissection speed (mm2/min), determined by dividing the area of the resected specimen (mm2) by procedure time (min). The area of the resected specimen was calculated using
the formula: (major axis of the excised specimen [mm])×(minor axis of the excised
specimen [mm])×(3.14/4). Secondary endpoints included procedure time (min), technical
success rate, en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, intraoperative perforation
rate, delayed perforation rate, and delayed bleeding rate. Procedure time was defined
as duration from initial submucosal injection to complete dissection of the lesion.
Time required for MLTD removal, prophylactic hemostasis, or closure of mucosal defect
was not included. Technical success rate was defined as the proportion of cases in
which the protocol treatment was completed in each group. Cases in which protocol
treatment could not be completed included: conversions from the MLTD-ESD to ESD without
traction; cases in the control group in which the MLTD was applied; dissection difficulties,
untreatable intraoperative perforation, or a sudden change in patient condition requiring
treatment termination; and conversion to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). En bloc
resection was defined as complete removal of the tumor without piecemeal resection
during the endoscopic procedure. Failure of en bloc resection included cauterization
for suspected residual tissue at the post-ESD ulcer edge or presence of detected tumor
in the biopsy from the residual area. R0 resection was defined as en bloc resection
with horizontal and vertical margins free of neoplasia according to pathological diagnosis.
Intraoperative perforations were defined as complete penetration of the serosa. Delayed
perforations were defined as post-procedure free air confirmed on x-ray or computed
tomography (CT) scan. Delayed bleeding was defined as rectal bleeding within 14 days
of the procedure with at least one of the following criteria: decrease in hemoglobin
levels ≥ 2 g/dL, need for endoscopic hemostasis, transcatheter arterial embolization,
surgical hemostasis, or blood transfusion.
The following clinical data were collected post-procedure: age, sex, overall ESD experience
of the operator (number of cases: 10–99/100–199/200–499/500–999/1000 or more), handover
to a more experienced endoscopist, tumor location, tumor morphology according to Paris
Classification (0-Is/IIa/IIb/IIc); laterally spreading tumor classification (LST-G-H/LST-G-Mix/LST-NG-FE/LST-NG-PD);
tumor diameter (mm); specimen diameter (mm); treatment conversion; procedure time
after conversion (min); muscularis propria injury, defined as partial or complete
rupture of inner circular muscle observed during ESD treatment; and final pathological
diagnosis according to World Health Organization classification. In the MLTD-ESD group,
the following data also were collected: number of MLTDs used; MLTD placement success
rate, defined as proportion of MLTDs placed without detachment, relative to total
number of MLTDs used; and lesion tissue damage at the MLTD site, as evaluated by endoscopic
images or by visual inspection.
Sample size calculation
A single-center RCT [6] reported an increase in dissection speed of 11.0 mm2/min increase in dissection speed using S-O clip for colorectal ESD. The S-O clip
operates similarly to the MLTD by anchoring one end near the lesion and securing the
other to the contralateral wall. Assuming treatment conversions would reduce the difference
of dissection speed between the two groups, we hypothesized a 9.9 mm2/min increase in dissection speed. The standard deviation (SD) was projected to be
17.3 mm2/min, based on 319 colorectal ESDs performed at The Jikei University Hospital from
January 2017 to December 2019. The required sample size was calculated to be 49 patients
per group, setting a significance level of 0.05 and a statistical power of 0.80. Considering
a 10% dropout rate, 109 patients were needed for recruitment.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was conducted using a modified intention-to-treat approach. The
full analysis set (FAS) included all patients other than those who withdrew from the
trial prior to receiving any treatment intervention. Secondary analysis was performed
on the per-protocol set (PPS), which included patients who completed the protocol
treatment. Exclusions from PPS included MLTD-ESD cases converted to ESD without traction,
control cases converted to ESD with MLTD, and conversions to EMR. Missing data were
not imputed, and outliers were kept in the analysis.
For continuous variables, descriptive statistics (maximum, median, minimum, quartiles,
mean and SD) were computed. For categorical data, frequencies were calculated. Between-group
differences in demographic and clinical data were evaluated using Pearson’s chi-square
test or Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables and Student’s t-test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables. Bonferroni correction was
applied for comparisons across multiple categories (i.e., tumor morphology, histological
pathology) in the patient background data. For the primary outcome, multiplicity was
not an issue, given that there was only one primary outcome measure. Point estimates
and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for both groups. Differences in
dissection speed, total procedure time were evaluated using analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) with the stratification factor (institution). Technical success rate, en
bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, and AEs were evaluated using Pearson's chi-square
test or Fisher’s exact test. Two-tailed tests were used for comparing two groups,
and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. There was no interim analysis.
All analyses were performed using R version 4.4.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing,
Vienna, Austria). Artwork creation was performed using Prism version 9.5.1 (GraphPad
Software, LLC, California, United States).
Results
Study population
Patient flow in the trial is shown in [Fig. 2]. From May to December 2022, 189 patients were assessed for eligibility. Excluding
50 patients who did not consent and 29 who did not meet the criteria, 110 patients
enrolled: 54 in the MLTD-ESD group and 56 patients in the control group. One patient
was excluded due to unresectable tumor, and one case failed to adhere to the protocol.
The FAS included 53 patients in the MLTD-ESD group and 55 in the control group. Baseline
characteristics were similar between the two groups. Median tumor diameters were 34
mm (interquartile range; [IQR] 29–45) in the MLTD-ESD group, and 36 mm (IQR 30–40)
in the control group. In the MLTD-ESD group, two patients (4%) required treatment
conversions, compared with 16 patients (29%) in the control group (P = 0.005) ([Table 1]).
Fig. 2 Flowchart of patients through enrollment, randomization, intervention, and analysis.
Table 1 Clinical data for the full analysis set.
|
MLTD-ESD (n = 53)
|
Control (n = 55)
|
P value
|
|
HM, horizontal margin; IQR, interquartile range; LST-G homo, laterally spreading tumor,
granular type (homogenous subtype); LST-G mix, laterally spreading tumor, granular
type (nodular mixed subtype); LST-NG FE, laterally spreading tumor, non-granular type
(flat elevated subtype); LST-NG PD, laterally spreading tumor, non-granular type (pseudo-depressed
subtype); MLTD, multi-loop traction device; SD, standard deviation; VM, vertical margin.
*Calculated using Wilcoxon’s rank-sum test.
†Calculated using Pearson’s chi-square test.
‡Calculated using Fisher’s exact test.
|
|
Age, years; mean ± SD
|
63.9 ± 12.9
|
66.0 ± 13.2
|
0.37*
|
|
Sex, n; male/female
|
34/19
|
35/20
|
0.96*
|
|
ESD experience of the operator, n (%)
|
|
|
0.49†
|
|
|
12
|
12
|
|
|
|
16
|
9
|
|
|
|
7
|
11
|
|
|
|
8
|
10
|
|
|
|
10
|
13
|
|
|
Handover to more experienced endoscopist
|
17% (9/53)
|
24% (13/55)
|
0.39†
|
|
Tumor location, n (%)
|
|
|
0.27‡
|
|
|
6 (11)
|
11 (20)
|
|
|
|
15 (28)
|
11 (20)
|
|
|
|
13 (25)
|
11 (20)
|
|
|
|
6 (11)
|
3 (5)
|
|
|
|
4 (7)
|
11 (20)
|
|
|
|
9 (17)
|
8 (14)
|
|
|
Morphology, n (%)
|
|
|
0.18‡
|
|
|
6 (11)
|
10 (18)
|
|
|
|
17 (32)
|
7 (13)
|
|
|
|
17 (32)
|
20 (36)
|
|
|
|
7 (13)
|
11 (20)
|
|
|
|
0 (0)
|
1 (2)
|
|
|
|
6 (11)
|
6 (11)
|
|
|
Tumor diameter, mm; median (IQR)
|
34 (29–45)
|
36 (30–40)
|
0.67*
|
|
Specimen diameter, mm; Median (IQR)
|
35 (29–44)
|
38 (30–40)
|
0.65*
|
|
Treatment conversion, n (%)
|
2 (4)
|
16 (29)
|
0.0005‡
|
|
Procedure time after conversion, min; mean ± SD
|
N/A
|
44.0 (± 57.0)
|
N/A
|
|
Muscularis propria injury, n (%)
|
2 (4)
|
7 (13)
|
0.16‡
|
|
Histological pathology, n (%)
|
|
|
0.98‡
|
|
|
4 (8)
|
3 (5)
|
|
|
|
4 (8)
|
6 (11)
|
|
|
|
0 (0)
|
1 (2)
|
|
|
|
5 (9)
|
3 (5)
|
|
|
|
4 (8)
|
4 (7)
|
|
|
|
3 (6)
|
2 (4)
|
|
|
|
32 (60)
|
34 (62)
|
|
|
|
1 (2)
|
1 (2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Histological depth, n (%)
|
|
|
0.26‡
|
|
|
31 (58)
|
28 (51)
|
|
|
|
0 (0)
|
4 (7)
|
|
|
|
2 (4)
|
3 (5)
|
|
|
|
20 (38)
|
20 (36)
|
|
|
Horizontal margin, n (%)
|
|
|
0.37‡
|
|
|
33 (62)
|
38 (69)
|
|
|
|
2 (4)
|
2 (4)
|
|
|
|
0 (0)
|
2 (4)
|
|
|
|
18 (34)
|
13 (24)
|
|
|
Vertical margin, n (%)
|
|
|
0.85‡
|
|
|
33 (62)
|
39 (71)
|
|
|
|
1 (2)
|
1 (2)
|
|
|
|
1 (2)
|
1 (2)
|
|
|
|
18 (34)
|
14 (25)
|
|
|
MLTDs used, n; mean ±SD
|
1.1 ± 0.4
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
|
MLTD placement success rate, n/N (%)
|
55/59 (93)
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
|
Lesion tissue damage at the MLTD site, n (%)
|
4 (8)
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
Procedure outcomes
In the MLTD-ESD group, median dissection speed was 14.8 mm2/min (IQR 8.9–23.9), whereas in the control group, median dissection speed was 13.3
mm2/min (IQR 8.9–18.8), with no statistically significant difference (95% CI -1.89 to
5.53; P = 0.33; [Fig. 3]
a). Procedure times were 52.0 minutes (IQR 26.5–87.0) and 55.0 minutes (IQR 40.0–80.0),
respectively (95% CI -26.34 to 6.20; P = 0.22). The technical success rate was higher in the MLTD-ESD group, with a statistically
significant difference (96.2% vs. 71.0%, 95% CI 12.3%- 38.4%, P = 0.0005). No statistically
significant differences were found in en bloc resection rate (MLTD-ESD 98.1% vs. control
100%, P = 0.49), R0 resection rate (94.3% vs. 91.0%, P = 0.72), or AEs ([Table 2]).
Fig. 3 Boxplot of dissection speed. a Full analysis set. b Subgroup analysis for expert endoscopists with more than 200 clinical ESD experiences.
c Nonexpert endoscopists with fewer than 200 clinical ESD experiences.
Table 2 Primary and secondary outcomes for the full analysis set.
|
MLTD-ESD (n = 53)
|
Control (n = 55)
|
P value
|
|
IQR, interquartile range; MLTD-ESD, multi-loop traction device endoscopic submucosal
dissection.
*Calculated using Wilcoxon’s rank-sum test.
†Calculated using Fisher’s exact test.
|
|
Dissection speed, mm2/min; median (IQR)
|
14.8 (8.9–23.9)
|
13.3 (8.9–18.8)
|
0.33*
|
|
Total procedure time, min; median (IQR)
|
52 (27–87)
|
55 (40–80)
|
0.22*
|
|
Technical success rate; %
|
96.2 %
|
71.0 %
|
0.0005†
|
|
En bloc resection rate; %
|
98.1 %
|
100 %
|
0.49†
|
|
R0 resection rate; %
|
94.3 %
|
91.0 %
|
0.72†
|
|
Adverse events; n
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
3
|
> 0.99†
|
|
|
1
|
1
|
> 0.99†
|
|
|
1
|
1
|
> 0.99†
|
PPS analysis included 51 patients in the MLTD-ESD group and 39 in the control group,
after excluding treatment conversions. Dissection speed was 14.4 mm2/minute (IQR 26.0–86.0) and 14.6 mm2/minute (IQR 9.1–20.8) in the control group, with no statistically significant difference
(95% CI 03.39–5.10; P = 0.69). Procedure times were 52.0 minutes (IQR 26.5–87.0) and 55.0 minutes (IQR
40.0–80.0), respectively, with no statistically significant difference (95% CI -19.56
to 9.21; P = 0.48).
Adverse events
During this investigation, nine AEs occurred. In the MLTD-ESD group, there were two
intraoperative perforations, one case of delayed bleeding, and one case of delayed
perforation, all managed non-surgically. The delayed perforation may have been unrelated
to ESD due to the patient’s history of total cystectomy and having been treated for
an intra-abdominal abscess 1 month prior, which could have caused the free air observed
on abdominal CT. In the control group, three intraoperative perforations, one case
of delayed bleeding, and one case of delayed perforation were observed. One patient
with early cecal carcinoma and pronounced submucosal fibrosis, whose ESD was converted
to MLTD-ESD method at the 28-minute mark, developed delayed perforation on the third
postoperative day. The patient underwent emergency appendectomy with ileostomy and
recovered after the surgery.
Subgroup analysis
All handovers to more experienced endoscopists occurred in primary operators who had
experience with fewer than 200 ESDs; 32.1% (9/29) in the MLTD-ESD group and 61.9%
(13/21) in the control group. In expert endoscopists who had experience with more
than 200 ESDs, dissection speed was faster in the MLTD-ESD group, with a statistically
significant difference (21.6 mm2/min, IQR 15.5–28.8 mm2/min vs. 14.4 mm2/min, IQR 9.9–21.2 mm2/min) (P = 0.009). No statistically significant differences were found among nonexperts (10.3
mm2/min, IQR 7.7–15.2 vs.10.7 mm2/min, IQR 8.0–16.6 mm2/min) (P = 0.75) ([Fig. 3]
b, [Fig. 3]
c, [Table 3]), or by lesion location and size ([Table 3]). In the control group, there was no statistically significant difference between
treatment conversion cases (10.1 mm2/min, IQR 7.6–14.4 mm2/min) and non-conversion cases (14.6 mm2/min, IQR 9.1–20.8 mm2/min) (P = 0.06). Among the nonexperts, dissection speed was faster in the non-handover cases
compared with handover cases, with a statistically significant difference (16.3 mm2/min, IQR 11.3–18.7 vs. 8.9 mm2/min, IQR 5.9–12.0 mm2/min) (P = 0.006). No statistically significant difference was found in the MLTD-ESD group
(11.2 mm2/min, IQR 8.7–17.4 vs. 8.4 mm2/min, IQR 6.5–12.1 mm2/min) (P = 0.09).
Table 3 Subgroup analysis of endoscopic submucosal dissection Bordelon speed according to
tumor diameter, location, macroscopic type, and operator experience between study
groups.
|
MLTD-ESD (n = 53)
|
C-ESD (n = 55)
|
*P value
|
|
C-ESD, conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection; MLTD-ESD, multi-loop traction
device endoscopic submucosal dissection.
*Calculated using Wilcoxon’s rank-sum test.
|
|
Tumor diameter, mm2/min: median (IQR)
|
|
|
16.5 (7.9–24.7)
|
9.0 (3.3–17.7)
|
0.11
|
|
|
14.8 (8.9–24.9)
|
13.6 (10.0–20.0)
|
0.82
|
|
Tumor location, mm2/min; median (IQR)
|
|
|
12.8 (9.3–26.6)
|
14.4 (10.0–18.2)
|
0.88
|
|
|
14.4 (10.2–21.0)
|
8.9 (7.6–16.7)
|
0.11
|
|
|
9.4 (7.7–22.0)
|
12.8 (8.2–15.2)
|
0.19
|
|
|
12.6 (5.4–19.3)
|
18.2 (2.8–22.7)
|
0.90
|
|
|
22.0 (13.2–49.5)
|
12.0 (10.7–20.0)
|
0.18
|
|
|
32.5 (12.1–37.2)
|
26.4 (10.1–33.6)
|
0.60
|
|
Operator, mm2/min; median (IQR)
|
|
|
21.6 (15.5–28.8)
|
14.4 (9.9–21.2)
|
0.01
|
|
|
10.3 (7.7–15.2)
|
10.7 (8.0–16.6)
|
0.75
|
Discussion
This was the first multicenter RCT to investigate efficacy of MLTD for colorectal
ESD. This study involved four high-volume academic centers in Japan, including facilities
unassociated with development of MLTD and 44.5% of the procedures (49/110) were performed
by nonexpert as the primary operators. Both rectal and colon ESD cases were included
to evaluate MLTD performance across various anatomical locations. Our study was designed
to minimize subjective bias and maintain external validity.
No statistically significant difference in dissection speed was observed, even with
MLTD assistance. The unexpectedly high treatment conversion rate of 29.0% observed
in the control group contrasts with the 7.0% reported in CONNECT-C [18], where conversion was limited to cases handed over to expert endoscopists after
60 minutes of difficulty in dissection. In our study, treatment conversions were allowed
after 10 minutes of difficulty in dissection to prioritize patient safety, which likely
prompted conversions in difficult cases and improved outcomes in the control group.
In the PPS, excluding treatment conversion cases left less challenging cases in the
control group, potentially masking benefits of MLTD. Variability in strategies among
different operators, such as attempting submucosal dissection and delaying MLTD application
even after circumferential incision, also may have influenced the outcome. We recommend
attaching the MLTD immediately after circumferential incision to maximize duration
of dissection plane exposure. Future studies with a rigorous conversion threshold
and standardized strategies may yield different results.
There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in en bloc
and R0 resection rates, or in AEs. Results were consistent with previous Japanese
traction studies, reaffirming the safety of MLTD. A limitation is lack of data about
post-polypectomy electrocoagulation syndrome. Compared with the European retrospective
study on double-clip traction-assisted colorectal ESD, dissection speed was slower
[21]. However, our R0 resection rates exceeded 90%, with low horizontal and vertical
involvement, suggesting that our institutions perform meticulous dissection.
In the subgroup analysis of experts, the MLTD-ESD group had faster dissection speeds
with a statistically significant difference, an improvement not seen in less experienced
nonexperts. This could be attributed to experts’ ability to more effectively utilize
MLTD to optimize the surgery, considering dynamic factors such as intestinal flexures,
peristalsis, tonus, and air insufflation, whereas introduction of MLTD by itself may
not suffice for nonexperts to adapt to these conditions. However, these findings conflict
with those from CONNECT-C, in which procedure times were shortened with traction in
nonexperts, rather than experts [18]. In our study, a higher handover rate was observed among nonexperts in the control
group. Our study had no handover thresholds, unlike CONNECT-C, which limited handovers
to cases prolonged for 60 minutes. We observed slower dissection speed in handovers
among nonexperts, indicating that this subgroup relied on expert interventions for
difficult cases. This may have skewed procedure outcomes toward the control group,
underestimating the benefit of MLTD for nonexperts. Although fewer handovers in the
MLTD-ESD group suggest a potential benefit for nonexperts completing procedures independently,
due to the lack of statistical significance of the primary endpoint, further studies
are needed to confirm this finding.
Our trial has some limitations. The amount of time the MLTD was applied to the lesion
was not investigated; however, in our ex vivo pilot study [6], the average attachment time was 2.5 minutes, which should not have impacted the
overall result. The open-label design of our study could not eliminate introduction
of performance bias. The research was conducted exclusively in Japanese facilities,
where ESD is a commonly practiced procedure, and our results may not be generalizable
to Western nations where the procedure is less prevalent. In addition, availability
of handovers to expert endoscopists in our study may not be generalizable to clinical
practice settings where handovers are not feasible.
Conclusions
In conclusion, this multicenter RCT of traction-assisted colorectal ESD using the
MLTD device did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in dissection
speed. Our result may have been underpowered due to the high treatment conversion
rate and high handover rates in the nonexpert subgroup within the control group. Further
research is warranted to fully understand the impact of MLTD, particularly for less
experienced practitioners.
Bibliographical Record
Mamoru Ito, Yuko Miura, Yasuhiko Mizuguchi, Hiroto Furuhashi, Yosuke Tsuji, Hiroyuki
Takamaru, Naoto Tamai, Mitsuhiro Fujishiro, Yutaka Saito, Kazuki Sumiyama. Efficacy
and safety of multi-loop traction device-assisted colorectal endoscopic submucosal
dissection: Multicenter randomized clinical trial. Endosc Int Open 2025; 13: a24660718.
DOI: 10.1055/a-2466-0718
